Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 07 – April 13, 2025

2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 135 to 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 145Nominal Index:Anna Maruti Shinde vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 135Bharat Ramji Thakkar vs Union Of India, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 136Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 137PV vs State of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 138Contract for Emergency Medical Services vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 139Harshvardhan Navnath Khandekar vs State Of Maharashtra, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 140M/s. Mehta & Co. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 141Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs. Uttam Ganu Nale & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 142Tanaji Shivaji Solankar & Ors vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr, 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 143Central Depositories Services (India) Limited. Vs. Ketan Lalit Shah and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 144Ballam Trifla Singh vs. Gyan Prakash Shukla & Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 145Judgments/Final Orders:Bombay HC Orders SIT Probe Into Five Policemen Involved In Badlapur 'Fake' Encounter, Says Can't Ignore State's Reluctance To Register FIRCase Title: Anna Maruti Shinde vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 135The Bombay High Court ordered SIT probe into five policemen allegedly involved in the Badlapur 'fake' encounter case.A division bench of Justices Revati Mohite-Dere and Dr Neela Gokhale said that a refusal to investigate a crime undermines the Rule of Law, erodes public faith in justice, and allows perpetrators to go unpunished.FIR Lodged & Investigation Underway: Bombay High Court Disposes PIL Alleging Mid-Day Meal ScamCase title: Bharat Ramji Thakkar vs Union Of IndiaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 136The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning an alleged scam in the distribution of food grains under the Mid-Day Meal Scheme, noting that a First Information Report (FIR) has been lodged and an investigation is underway.Chairman Of Industrial Establishment Held Liable For Non-Compliance With Labor Court Order: Bombay HCCase Title: Arun Hastimal Firodia v. The State of Maharashtra and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 137A single judge bench of Justice Y. G. Khobragade upheld the issuance of criminal process against the Chairman of Kinetic Engineering Ltd., for failing to implement a Labor Court judgment. The court rejected the argument that a Chairman cannot be held responsible for compliance with court orders. The court clarified that persons in positions of control and supervision over an industrial establishment's affairs are obligated to implement court judgments even when appeals are pending without a stay order.Once Marriage Is Registered, Husband Can't Be Booked For Rape On Ground That He Did Not Fulfill Promise To Marry As Per Customs: Bombay HCCase Title: PV vs State of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 138Once a marriage is legally registered and a couple establishes sexual relations, the husband cannot be booked for rape because he did not fulfill his 'promise to marry the wife as per religious customs', the Goa bench of the Bombay High Court, held recently.Bombay High Court Dismisses PIL On Alleged Illegalities In Govt Tender For Supply Of AmbulancesCase title: Contract for Emergency Medical Services vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 139The Bombay High Court has dismissed a petition concerning alleged illegalities in the state government tender process for the supply and operation of emergency medical services and ambulances.Bombay HC Refuses To Entertain PIL Apprehending Coercive Action By State Against Those Who Shared Kunal Kamra's Controversial Comedy ClipCase title: Harshvardhan Navnath Khandekar vs State Of Maharashtra Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 140The Bombay High Court has disposed of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that raised apprehension that the Maharashtra government would take coercive action against those who shared Kunal Kamra's comedy clip, where he made the "gaddar" comment purportedly against Maharashtra's Deputy CM Eknath Shinde.Bombay High Court Slaps ₹2 Lakh Cost On BMC For Razing Structure Used As Temporary Shelter For Cancer PatientsCase Title: M/s. Mehta & Co. vs Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 141The Bombay High Court recently imposed Rs 2 lakh costs on the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) for high-handedly demolishing a structure which was used to provide temporary shelter and food for the cancer patients taking treatment in the city's Tata Memorial Hospital.Presumption U/S 16 HAMA Conditional Upon Signing Of Adoption Deed By Persons Giving And Taking Child In Adoption: Bombay HCCase title: Nivritti Pandurang Nale vs. Uttam Ganu Nale & Anr Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Bom) 142The Bombay High Court has observed that mere registration of an adopted deed cannot give rise to a presumption under Section 16 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. It noted that the presumption under Section 16 is conditional ...

Bombay High Court Weekly Round-Up: April 07 – April 13, 2025

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags